Just when you thought the public posturing couldn't become more frustrating/annoying/pathetic, NHLPA head Donald Fehr suggested to the Toronto Star the longer the lockout goes then the players might want to abolish the salary cap.

I'm sure we all believe the players would sit out a 2nd year just to get rid of the cap. Didn't they try that in 2004? Mr. Fehr, a quick tip, don't insult your fans. We know they ultimately don't have a say in this ridiculous lockout, but throwing out the "cap card" might have been your least intelligent statement to date.

The salary cap is not going anywhere, and any mention of that is purely a waste of time and a lame scare tactic.

Currently 127 NHL players are playing in Europe with another 40 or so young guys playing in the AHL. That is only 167 of the 720 who played last year. They might end up with a total of 240 within the next month, but that is still less than 1/3 of the union playing.

I don't see the union getting more unified while the majority sits out.

This lockout will hurt the middle and bottom tier players, who make up close to 75% of the league.

Here is a quick look at how the last lockout saw a major increase of rookies in 2006.

I don't put much stock into the point totals being different, because scoring was up across the league in 2006, but there was a massive increase of 55% more rookies playing at least 40+ games in 2006 compared to the other eight seasons.

The longer the lockout goes the higher that number will climb. More rookies means more veterans losing their job.

LOOK AHEAD

Here is a list of players who will be UFAs and RFAs at the end of the season. Via www.nhlnumbers.com

That is 275 players. How many of them won't sign another NHL contract due to the lockout? I'd guess at least 100.

SPLIT THE POT?

I truly wonder how many of the existing NHL players wouldn't suit up tomorrow at a 50/50 split. I know that number isn't perfect, and it doesn't solve all the problems of the league (more on that tomorrow), but I seriously doubt the majority of the NHLPA is ready to sit out a full season.

The list below consists of veterans who have yet to sign a deal. How many would have signed if a new CBA was in place?

Even if there wasn't a lockout some of these players wouldn't be back, but at least 10-15 of them would have signed.

Hopefully the public posturing will end soon, but keep in mind that with every passing day a few more members of the NHLPA will have played their last game in the NHL, and for many more they will have seen their final NHL contract.

Will the majority be willing to lose an entire year of salary, and possibly their final contract?

Only they know the answer.

One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor

I have to truly question the wisdom of the individual players, or perhaps how much they rely on "advisors" such as agents and the NHLPA for advice on the situation.

There is no way the league restarts without the NHL achieving what it started, otherwise there would have been no purpose in holding the lockout, and while Fehr can threaten the salary cap, the owners can always throw guaranteed contracts on the table.

As far as losing players, the year prior to the 2004 lockout lost 241 players when the lockout was settled (from Elliot Friedman). I wonder if the players themselves know that.

And once again, back to the advice the players are getting, this is just me, but wouldn’t a little logic come in to play here.

Is it not in the players (as a whole) interest to have as many healthy franchises as possible? Healthy franchises mean 50 player contracts per team. It means some relative job security in the long term, as teams don’t have to dump contracts to save money. It means healthy competition between teams in going after free agents, which in turn means higher salaries for the players.

To me a short term hit, losing 15% percent now, to secure some health for the league and therefore the players (of course other changes i.e., cap floor, term limits etc would take place), is better than losing a year’s salary.

An example, Mike Modano lost $9 million in the lockout year. If the players had signed by Dec 1, he would have lost only $2 million. Yet in the bargaining over at that time the difference in rollback offered by the players and accepted by the owners was 0%. The offer by the NHLPA in Dec 2004 was 24%, the final accepted deal was 24%. So Modano lost $9 million where he only had to lose $2 million if the deal was done in Dec.

And.....to make it even more ridiculous, the $17 million he made after the lockout was 15% more under the new CBA than it would have been before. Now I hope people would understand why ex-NHLers like Modano are telling players “IT ISNT WORTH IT”. He is not just blowing smoke.

A player making the NHL average of $2.4 million today would lose $370,000 in salary if the players agreed to a new CBA by Nov 1 with a 15% rollback. Since the players like to use that 7% revenue growth so much, using that annual growth, it would take the players 2 seasons to recover that lost salary and start earning in excess of that $2.4 million.(assuming they dont sign another contract in the meantime).

But if they hold out the season and still end up with the rollback, they lose $2.4 million and it would take them 6 ½ years to make that money back, and once again, that is assuming that revenues continue to grow at 7%, or it could take longer.

Once again, Modano knows what he is talking about, and the players need to be educated on both sides of the coin.

hopefully none will play,please fire them all and put replacement players in-Start over,with talent that wants to perform and take pride in there city,team and sport!it is garbage that the average nhl salary is above 2 million,it is garbage you have guys making over 7 million a year.then hire some one with some brains(EXIT BETTMEN)TO KEEP THE OWNERS IN CHECK and stop giving out stupid contracts(parise,suter weber,crosby,kovulchuck ect)put the salary cap at 30 million and dont raise it.drop ticket prices so the average family can go to games and enjoy the sport with there family!!if the players cant understand a 30 mill salary cap I can tell you as a father of three boys I would be super proud of anyone of my sons making the nhl and making 750000 dollers a year,proud of the hard work they put in,proud that they can support there family and proud they play for the love of the game instead of the greed of the almighty doller.time for nhl players to grow up and relize they make more than doctors,lawyers,teachers and all other IMPORTANT members of our world!they DONT CARE ABOUT THE FANS,SO WE SHOULD NOT GIVE A RATS BUTT ABOUT THEM!thanks for a wonderful season nhl,I for one will never spend another dime on this product!

Grandfather the revenue, take an average of the last 3 years of revenue and the players get 57% of that amount for the next cba. If the owners want more money they need to grow their investment and promote sales. Any increase in the revenue above the 3 year average goes to the owners. The bigger the game gets the bigger piece of the pie the owners get. The players get the value of their current contracts. Then OWNERS! STOP OFFERING STUPID CONTRACTS!

Sure there are a lot of holes in the idea and most would say no immediately but it is a different idea to what is currently there and apparently there are only 2 ideas to choose from either give the owners everything they want or the players. I wonder if the to sides would be interested it using a tactic called "negotiating". Stop messing about and get my my HOCKEY!

Unless your kid is some kind of AAA wounderkid travelling all over the place for tournaments, there is no way you are playing $4000

I have three kids playing. The cost for each:

$500 - $600 for fees; $400 a year for equipment (usually less as stuff gets passed down and most equipment is used by the same kid for multiple years; $100 - $200 cash call for extra ice/ tournaments/ trophies ($0 if do fundraiser)

$1200 is a better estimate than $4000

$4000 is very conservative at the rep level. $5000 to $6000 fees to play Midget AAA in Edmonton area. This does not include equipment, composite sticks, gas money, parents hotel rooms for road weekends, etc.

Truth speaks the truth. And costs are the same whether your kid is the scoring star or a plugger like mine was.

Gregor, why do you keep on with your anti player nonsense? Fehr is the boss of hockey, and as soon as the idiot owners get that through their heads the better. The owners are responsible for making money for the players. The majority of the players are underpaid as it is, as if the should be taking a paycut lol.

The cap will be gone in the next CBA. Players I have spoken with have told me that if it takes 2 years or more then so be it.

The longer this drags on, the less I like Fehr. It seems that he is more interested in promoting his reputation than getting his members back earning - what can only be described as - a very attractive living.

Most NHL players are a sad bunch of professional athletes to begin with anyway. Heatley is one of the leagues highest payed players, enough said. Bring in the replacements, we'll make them the same shining stars Heatley and Thornton claim they are.

Good for you NHLers that are forced to retire after missing this season. Good luck on your real job like the rest of us have and use to support your former dream life. It won't be coming from this company/family. The minute the entire season gets cancelled is the minute some lucky fan on the waiting list gets my tickets.

My money will be way better spent on the upwards of $4,000.00/year/each it takes for kids to PLAY hockey.

Correct me if Im wrong Jason, but isnt it the 24% Roll Back on player salaries the League is asking for which is the non starter? I believe the percentage split could be negotiated, ie... progressive rollback over a few years depending on revenue growth. But the players dont want any roll back on salaries, which has stopped the negotiations.

Grandfather the revenue, take an average of the last 3 years of revenue and the players get 57% of that amount for the next cba. If the owners want more money they need to grow their investment and promote sales. Any increase in the revenue above the 3 year average goes to the owners. The bigger the game gets the bigger piece of the pie the owners get. The players get the value of their current contracts. Then OWNERS! STOP OFFERING STUPID CONTRACTS!

Sure there are a lot of holes in the idea and most would say no immediately but it is a different idea to what is currently there and apparently there are only 2 ideas to choose from either give the owners everything they want or the players. I wonder if the to sides would be interested it using a tactic called "negotiating". Stop messing about and get my my HOCKEY!

Unless the owwners get serious and agree to more revenue sharing, there will continue to be a financial mess. If they cannot see this, then the only solutiuon will be to significantly reduce each team's salary floor or possibly base the salary floor on a percentage of the team's own revenues.

Gregor, why do you keep on with your anti player nonsense? Fehr is the boss of hockey, and as soon as the idiot owners get that through their heads the better. The owners are responsible for making money for the players. The majority of the players are underpaid as it is, as if the should be taking a paycut lol.

The cap will be gone in the next CBA. Players I have spoken with have told me that if it takes 2 years or more then so be it.

Most NHL players are a sad bunch of professional athletes to begin with anyway. Heatley is one of the leagues highest payed players, enough said. Bring in the replacements, we'll make them the same shining stars Heatley and Thornton claim they are.

Not sure what cards Fehr has to play. Said it before and I will say it again, it is easier to keep 30 owners towing the line than 750 players - especially when they start missing cheques. I realize the players make big money, but typically they spend big money and enjoy a lifestyle that cannot be sustained on $0 rolling in.

There are so many guys that will not get another NHL contract after their's expire this year and others who will be taking a bath next year as they are not playing at the level of their current salary. How can they possibly support a lockout that will take away some or all of their last big contract? Sounds nice that it benefits guys down the road (maybe) - but it is asking a lot of the Scott Hannan, Jaromir Jagr, Brendan Morrow, Andy Sutton, Ryan Whitney, Jeff Halpern, Daniel Alfresson and Roman Hamrlik-types (to name very few of many), who will have ZERO chance of recovering the millions they are going to lose this year with an extended knockout. Who is speaking for these guys?

Don't get me wrong, Bettman is a hammerhead, but Fehr is bluffing and everyone knows he has 2-7 offsuit. The only hope he has is the pressure coming to Bettman from corporate partners and networks. But Bettman has proven in the past that his ego trumps any dissenting opinions to his own. Expect this to be a long painful journey and a lot of disgruntled players once they realize they have given up millions to finally settle on a deal that could have been had in October.

Good for you NHLers that are forced to retire after missing this season. Good luck on your real job like the rest of us have and use to support your former dream life. It won't be coming from this company/family. The minute the entire season gets cancelled is the minute some lucky fan on the waiting list gets my tickets.

My money will be way better spent on the upwards of $4,000.00/year/each it takes for kids to PLAY hockey.

Unless your kid is some kind of AAA wounderkid travelling all over the place for tournaments, there is no way you are playing $4000

I have three kids playing. The cost for each:

$500 - $600 for fees; $400 a year for equipment (usually less as stuff gets passed down and most equipment is used by the same kid for multiple years; $100 - $200 cash call for extra ice/ tournaments/ trophies ($0 if do fundraiser)

Fehr severely misunderstands the economics and fan sympathies in hockey when compared to baseball-- the American appetite for baseball is so strong that they can't do without it for more than a bit while in hockey, the US generally doesn't even rank the sport in their top 3 or 4 while in Canada, we can't understand how it is such a hardship for the average player to go from $2.2M/year to maybe $1.8M/year when the average Canadian family income after taxes is around $76,600 per year.

When I read Fehr's comment, it helped me accept that the year is most likely a wipeout, and actually turned my opinion around as to whether I would be willing to watch replacement players (the answer is now, yes, I would consider it). Good job Fehr... make a threat while holding a banana in your hand and tell me it's a gun...

Gregor, why do you keep on with your anti player nonsense? Fehr is the boss of hockey, and as soon as the idiot owners get that through their heads the better. The owners are responsible for making money for the players. The majority of the players are underpaid as it is, as if the should be taking a paycut lol.

The cap will be gone in the next CBA. Players I have spoken with have told me that if it takes 2 years or more then so be it.

I find it hard to believe there are people, even hockey players, who are dumb enough to be willing to give up two years pay so they do not have to take, what will end up being a 10% paycut.

Especially considering the average NHL player plays less than 100 games. What am I missing?

EDIT: @ The Goalie 1976 - I thought it was sarcasm until I read the last paragraph. I hope you are right, that no one actually believes this stuff.

The owners have their business plan and are determined to get their labor costs at the level that works for them. I doubt that any of them badly need their hockey profits to continue their current lifestyle. They know that the players do not have that luxury. This lockout can only end one way. The owners will get what they want.

The owners got everything they asked for the last time they went through negotiations. Now, they are asking for another rollback when the owners are the ones handing out the ridiculous money!?! It seems to me that Fehr is more than willing to negotiate a piece of the HRR, but I have to agree with the players not wanting to accept a rollback.
Why give up money that you and your employer agreed upon?

$4,000.00 is a rough number below the actual cost to play Midget rep in St. Albert. That's registration only.

The point is that parents/kids PAY to play the game they love. These athletes get paid millions to play the game they love. Many of them will never have to work a "real" job in their lives. The millions of dollars they get paid come from our (the fans) pockets, directly or indirectly. As I said in an earlier thread, without fans the NHL would be as much of a business enterprise as professional handball. It's time for fans to start letting the NHL know that. I surely will.

Will an NHL player ever recover the paychecks lost during this lockout?

Lets take a player 'X' that is in his late 20's (28) making 5 mil per. This is likely his final contract. He loses that 5 mil for this season. Now under the new CBA he will have to make an extra mil/year above market value for 5 straight years (which won't happen.)

I don't get the players perspective. The NHL took a roll-back off the table, and is now offering a sliding revenue % that will see their current contracts honored. The players should take that deal and run. It's just pure greed on their behalf now.

I just can't understand how they think they can re-cooperate a years salary lost. A young guy like Hall or Tavares probably could, but a vast majority won't.

As soon as the NHL took the roll-back off the table, and added the sliding revenue % drop, how can there be a better offer for the players?

Correct me if Im wrong Jason, but isnt it the 24% Roll Back on player salaries the League is asking for which is the non starter? I believe the percentage split could be negotiated, ie... progressive rollback over a few years depending on revenue growth. But the players dont want any roll back on salaries, which has stopped the negotiations.

QFT.

Gregor needs to get off his fanatically pro-owner position.

The players would sign a reasonable deal like the one mentioned above yesterday. The problem is that the owners aren't interested in reasonable deals.

This gives the players two choices. First, they can capitulate, give back 24% of their salaries, and prepare for another lockout in six years, when the owners come after guaranteed contracts and whatever else they have on their shopping list. Or, they can show the owners that both sides have things to lose by sacrificing another season (or two).

Giving in to the owners demands is a losing strategy in the longterm and so the only choice the players have is to make this ugly. This is no longer about this lockout, it is about future lockouts as well.

The good news is that since baseball players did this, there has been 20 years of labour peace.

You have to remember that lockouts happen at the discretion of owners. If you don't like the lockout (and who does?) then you have to hope that the costs of the lockout for the owners exceeds the gains from it. Otherwise this is going to happen every six years until the owners stop "winning."

If you side with the owners you are choosing to have more lockouts in the future. The only way for the fans to win is for the owners to lose.

The players would sign a reasonable deal like the one mentioned above yesterday. The problem is that the owners aren't interested in reasonable deals.

This gives the players two choices. First, they can capitulate, give back 24% of their salaries, and prepare for another lockout in six years, when the owners come after guaranteed contracts and whatever else they have on their shopping list. Or, they can show the owners that both sides have things to lose by sacrificing another season (or two).

Giving in to the owners demands is a losing strategy in the longterm and so the only choice the players have is to make this ugly. This is no longer about this lockout, it is about future lockouts as well.

The good news is that since baseball players did this, there has been 20 years of labour peace.

You have to remember that lockouts happen at the discretion of owners. If you don't like the lockout (and who does?) then you have to hope that the costs of the lockout for the owners exceeds the gains from it. Otherwise this is going to happen every six years until the owners stop "winning."

If you side with the owners you are choosing to have more lockouts in the future. The only way for the fans to win is for the owners to lose.

Not that I disagree with your statement, but if the NHL broke (and dissolved) the players union, and the players became employees (which they technically are anyway) then the NHL could run their business as they see fit, no?

Nah, never mind. Neither side has enough balls to stare that situation down.

The players would sign a reasonable deal like the one mentioned above yesterday. The problem is that the owners aren't interested in reasonable deals.

This gives the players two choices. First, they can capitulate, give back 24% of their salaries, and prepare for another lockout in six years, when the owners come after guaranteed contracts and whatever else they have on their shopping list. Or, they can show the owners that both sides have things to lose by sacrificing another season (or two).

Giving in to the owners demands is a losing strategy in the longterm and so the only choice the players have is to make this ugly. This is no longer about this lockout, it is about future lockouts as well.

The good news is that since baseball players did this, there has been 20 years of labour peace.

You have to remember that lockouts happen at the discretion of owners. If you don't like the lockout (and who does?) then you have to hope that the costs of the lockout for the owners exceeds the gains from it. Otherwise this is going to happen every six years until the owners stop "winning."

If you side with the owners you are choosing to have more lockouts in the future. The only way for the fans to win is for the owners to lose.

I am trying to understand your position, really I am.

What I understand you are saying is that right now enough owners are losing money that it is cheaper for them to "lockout" than continue to do business?

And how exactly is the players making as much or more money than they currently are, going to improve this situation?

The salary cap since the last CBA has gone from $39 million to over $70 million. I get that the owners have to accept the responsibility for a large amout of the mess, agents also can take some of the heat. I hold the players blameless for signing these contracts. You or I would do the same thing.

But what I am missing is how the players have been "doing without" when their average salary has increased from $1.5 million per anum in 2006 to $2.5 million per year in 2012? And how has the last CBA been an owner win?

$4,000.00 is a rough number below the actual cost to play Midget rep in St. Albert. That's registration only.

The point is that parents/kids PAY to play the game they love. These athletes get paid millions to play the game they love. Many of them will never have to work a "real" job in their lives. The millions of dollars they get paid come from our (the fans) pockets, directly or indirectly. As I said in an earlier thread, without fans the NHL would be as much of a business enterprise as professional handball. It's time for fans to start letting the NHL know that. I surely will.

I don't have anyone in Midget yet, so I will take your word for it.

But I think a lot of people like to portray hockey as some super expensive sport where 8 yr olds are paying $4000 to play Novice. Its just not the case.

The players would sign a reasonable deal like the one mentioned above yesterday. The problem is that the owners aren't interested in reasonable deals.

This gives the players two choices. First, they can capitulate, give back 24% of their salaries, and prepare for another lockout in six years, when the owners come after guaranteed contracts and whatever else they have on their shopping list. Or, they can show the owners that both sides have things to lose by sacrificing another season (or two).

Giving in to the owners demands is a losing strategy in the longterm and so the only choice the players have is to make this ugly. This is no longer about this lockout, it is about future lockouts as well.

The good news is that since baseball players did this, there has been 20 years of labour peace.

You have to remember that lockouts happen at the discretion of owners. If you don't like the lockout (and who does?) then you have to hope that the costs of the lockout for the owners exceeds the gains from it. Otherwise this is going to happen every six years until the owners stop "winning."

If you side with the owners you are choosing to have more lockouts in the future. The only way for the fans to win is for the owners to lose.

Maybe Gregor will get off his "fanatically pro owner position" when you will get off your "fanatically pro- player position"

But I think a lot of people like to portray hockey as some super expensive sport where 8 yr olds are paying $4000 to play Novice. Its just not the case.

I agree. It is a reasonable cost until you hit the Bantam / Midget rep level. Sadly, there are likely some skilled kids that just don't have the means to play at that level. But there are a lot of athletic clubs that have individuals and companies who quietly help out those who may be less-advantaged.

Hockey is a great sport and their are organizations like Sports Central that make it easier for everyone to play, especially at the younger ages. Good on them.

Let's also not forget that the $4,000+ (which is a true number) to play is in after tax dollars which means it's eating anywhere from $6,000-$8,000 of your annual salary and that 99% of those kids will end up being above average beer league players. Point being that shoveling the sidewalks needs to be incorporated by coaches into off-ice training!!

Gregor I noticed Cam Barker wasn't on your list of veterans who might otherwise have a contract were it not for the lockout - you're a cold hearted man :)

Let's also not forget that the $4,000+ (which is a true number) to play is in after tax dollars which means it's eating anywhere from $6,000-$8,000 of your annual salary and that 99% of those kids will end up being above average beer league players. Point being that shoveling the sidewalks needs to be incorporated by coaches into off-ice training!!

Gregor I noticed Cam Barker wasn't on your list of veterans who might otherwise have a contract were it not for the lockout - you're a cold hearted man :)

When did the NHL take the rollback off the table? I haven't seen that.

If what you're saying is true, then I agree, it's just a matter of negotiation to see how fast the % slides.

But I don't think the owners have taken the rollback off the table.

I tried finding the newest ones on Google with no success.

I thought the last NHL offer was a sliding % drop from 57 year one, 56, 54, 52, 50, or something like that over a 5 year span. (no initial across the board roll-back)

A 57% in year 1 also equals no roll-back as the team caps stay the same.

I remember the NHL offer before that one was only a 7% roll-back, but with a less favorable yearly % drop for the players.

I could be wrong here, as I can't seem to find any offer on Google except the initial ones. Damn. This really highlights how BS these negotiations are. I can only accurately find each sides initial offer, but no counter offers. Does anyone (including myself) even know for sure where the offer-counter offers sit? I though I was right, but now I'm unsure...Seems like a good next article for Jason/Robin to enlighten everyone LOL

Could the players conceivably accept the NHL's latest offer then turn around and go on strike to get what they want?

I would think the courts would consider that negotiating in bad faith, which would void any agreement, and the NHL would be able to sue the PA for season time lost and court costs. On the bright side it would legally open the door for scab players LOL

Oilers Nation Unite: Any writer on the Nation who gets paid to do this. Here is the next post. It's called lets end this lock out now. Here's the play. It's all about money for the player and the owners. They want/need our money. Boycotting hockey (NHL) for good is dumb and we will never stick to that. However, this isn't just hockey. We vow to sit out the year from the NHL only, and all associated hockey related revenue. For one year. Next, we compile a list of what all 30 NHL owners own, companies, real estate, chains, brands, cars; whatever makes them money. And we vow to choose other products. Instead of Molson Canadian, buy Moosehead. Instead Katz drugs, shop at London Drugs or Shoppers Drug Mart. Instead of Walmart, go else where. And we go down the list and threaten every single owner to buy somewhere else. They are willing to miss out on hockey related revenue and take the lose, but are they and their share holders, board members, etc. willing to take the lose on everything they own and thus making it possible to swallow hockey loses? Next we go to the NHL. Center Ice packages, cancelled. NHL network, cancelled. Any advertiser that has a major spot with the NHL, we choose to buy else where. Here is a list of major NHL sponsors:
- Forzani Group (Sport Expert ,Sport Check, etc.)
- Sirius XM Radio
- Bridgestone
- Ticket Master
- Energizer
- Verizon Wireless
- Visa
- Pepsi
- Scotia Bank
- Geico
- Cisco
- Kraft
- Starwood ( hotel )
- Bell
- Lg
- Honda
- Mc Donalds (Us Only but let's boycott them anyway)
- Us Army (don't know how you can boycott this one anyway )
- Gatorade
- Huggies
- Blackberry (yes you are reading right)
- Enterprise
- Canadian Tire
- Tim Horton
- RDS
- TSN
- CTV
- NBC
- Reebok
- Molson beer (Futur Sponsor)
- Budweiser (current Sponsor)

Now. If we piss those companies off and they see a decline in sales BECAUSE they are associated with the NHL, how is that gonna play? I promise, with that kind of economic pressure and sponsors even thinking of pulling out this thing gets signed within 10 days. The entire point is this. With media coverage, get this in the Journal, the Sun, The Calgary Herald, on TSN, on CTV, CBC, CBS, FOX, NBC and everyone craps themselves at the media coverage alone. You want power, go for the money. Advertising is the key. Lets get this movement started and let set a drop dead date on them. The Mayor plays this card, the Katz plays this card, the NHL plays this card, lets trump all of them and collective push all in. We are starting here Nation and it take one writer on this site to make the article public and start calling on some media friends. The snowball will grow in a hurry. Attack every dollar that Gary defends. And nail every owner will every dollar that allows them the power to continue the lock out.

Oilers Nation Unite: Any writer on the Nation who gets paid to do this. Here is the next post. It's called lets end this lock out now. Here's the play. It's all about money for the player and the owners. They want/need our money. Boycotting hockey (NHL) for good is dumb and we will never stick to that. However, this isn't just hockey. We vow to sit out the year from the NHL only, and all associated hockey related revenue. For one year. Next, we compile a list of what all 30 NHL owners own, companies, real estate, chains, brands, cars; whatever makes them money. And we vow to choose other products. Instead of Molson Canadian, buy Moosehead. Instead Katz drugs, shop at London Drugs or Shoppers Drug Mart. Instead of Walmart, go else where. And we go down the list and threaten every single owner to buy somewhere else. They are willing to miss out on hockey related revenue and take the lose, but are they and their share holders, board members, etc. willing to take the lose on everything they own and thus making it possible to swallow hockey loses? Next we go to the NHL. Center Ice packages, cancelled. NHL network, cancelled. Any advertiser that has a major spot with the NHL, we choose to buy else where. Here is a list of major NHL sponsors: - Forzani Group (Sport Expert ,Sport Check, etc.) - Sirius XM Radio - Bridgestone - Ticket Master - Energizer - Verizon Wireless - Visa - Pepsi - Scotia Bank - Geico - Cisco - Kraft - Starwood ( hotel ) - Bell - Lg - Honda - Mc Donalds (Us Only but let's boycott them anyway) - Us Army (don't know how you can boycott this one anyway ) - Gatorade - Huggies - Blackberry (yes you are reading right) - Enterprise - Canadian Tire - Tim Horton - RDS - TSN - CTV - NBC - Reebok - Molson beer (Futur Sponsor) - Budweiser (current Sponsor)

Now. If we piss those companies off and they see a decline in sales BECAUSE they are associated with the NHL, how is that gonna play? I promise, with that kind of economic pressure and sponsors even thinking of pulling out this thing gets signed within 10 days. The entire point is this. With media coverage, get this in the Journal, the Sun, The Calgary Herald, on TSN, on CTV, CBC, CBS, FOX, NBC and everyone craps themselves at the media coverage alone. You want power, go for the money. Advertising is the key. Lets get this movement started and let set a drop dead date on them. The Mayor plays this card, the Katz plays this card, the NHL plays this card, lets trump all of them and collective push all in. We are starting here Nation and it take one writer on this site to make the article public and start calling on some media friends. The snowball will grow in a hurry. Attack every dollar that Gary defends. And nail every owner will every dollar that allows them the power to continue the lock out.

I'm not on either side. I rip on either side when they want to waste time rather than actually negotiate.

Same reason I told the Oilers it was a mistake to go to Seattle, when we all know they would never move there.

I heard you say on the radio that you think the salary cap should be at $50 million. There was also the implication that they should not go up from there as revenues increased though that may be reading into it.

In any case, since that is more than what the owners are actually asking for this makes you not only on the owners side, but a hardliner.

Moreover, you routinely talk about how the players are overpaid. How should that be interpreted?

I've really tuned myself out to TSN.com and anything NHL related, with the exception of a few articles on this website. If hockey started tomorrow, I'd be back in for sure...but there are definitely a lot of people out there who are downright pissed and may not come back to watching the NHL - that's the risk the owners are taking: a hit to future salaries. But really, I'm on the owners side on this, and for a couple of reasons...

1. How do the NHL Players salaries compare to other leagues? How much easier is it to keep some grass growing vs. flooding a rink 41 games a season? The cost is obviously higher for the NHL to put a game on, and it's far from the most popular sport.

2. The NHL is coming forward with real business proposals, while the NHLPA is coming out with a bunch of whining and moaning about how the longer this goes the more they'll threaten...yada, yada, yada...how about you respond to an offer? How about marking up the NHL's offer instead of coming up with some wild and crazy ideas, because by canceling a season the NHL is telling you they're serious??? The NHL may be the ones actually locking out the players, but they're not doing it just because they want to negotiate to get what they want...it's because the old system REALLY DOESN'T WORK FOR THEM!!!

My only idea: if the owners are going to hold out and be as rough as they can be to the players, and if a roll back in the cap occurs slowly over 5 years - then why not create a CBA that lasts longer than 7 years??? Make something that works, that teams are willing to commit to, and likewise for the players. I certainly don't want to deal with this crap every 7 years...

Gregor, why do you keep on with your anti player nonsense? Fehr is the boss of hockey, and as soon as the idiot owners get that through their heads the better. The owners are responsible for making money for the players. The majority of the players are underpaid as it is, as if the should be taking a paycut lol.

The cap will be gone in the next CBA. Players I have spoken with have told me that if it takes 2 years or more then so be it.

I am assuming/hoping this is sarcasm.

Otherwise, I would suggest buying a calculator.

There is NO positive net financial outcome for the players
that involves being out for more than a month or two.
Break out those grade 5 math skills.

The same may also be true of the owners except they have
other revenue streams and an appreciating asset. The player
asset (their body) decreases in hockey value EVERY DAY.